My recent letter linking reduced state income to reduced natural resource extraction was met with unexpected vitriol and outrage by several readers, including two physicians and one PhD, who somehow find it more satisfying to demonize one's opponent than respond on point. I can't really respond to the physicians' diatribe about "climate change" since I don't know what they mean. If they are using that term to mean "global warming", they should say so and state their point.
It is a bit unsettling to have one's mental capacity challenged in what should have been a perfectly civil exchange. My experience with this sort of hysterical rejoinder is that it usually indicates a lack of true understanding of the issue.
Those who believe that "global warming" is settled science, or that there is such a thing as "settled" science, should probably avoid debate on complex scientific issues, since such debate requires a commitment to civil discussion and an understanding of basic scientific principles. When one fails either, or both, of these requirements, as here, he or she will resort to demonization of his or her opponent.
The underlying theory of global warming due to anthropogenic radiative greenhouse gas emissions is contradicted not only by observation (satellite measurement), but by any number of very basic laws of physics, most importantly the second law of thermodynamics, which renders the theory absolutely untenable. Those who cannot accept such facts have their work cut out for themselves, if they choose to convince others of their beliefs. Debate on these and other scientific issues should always be welcome, and civil.
David Klein, M.D.